B SANKAPPA RAI Vs. K EKANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions are directed against the order dated 16. 5. 2'000 passed by the jmfc, II Court, Mangalore D. K Dist, in P. C. No. 307/2000 regarding taking of cognizance and issuance of summons to the respondent on the ground that the order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to these cases are that the revision petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent on 4. 3. 2000 at 6p. m on the allegation that at about 4. 30 p. m the respondent and other 30 members assembled in the Dist. Congress Committee (DCC), Mangalore, under the chairmanship of A. C. Bhandari discussing deeply as to who among 17 out of 21 successive candidates of Bajal Village Panchayath should be nominated for the posts. At that time, respondents all of a sudden trespassed into the meeting hall and some of them were armed with pen-knives and smooth round stones concealed in cloth bairas and Respondent 1 to 6 started questioning the petitioner and others in loud voice by saying "who asked you to hold the meeting. What is the discussion you are doing, who had given you permission" and so saying among the accused. Accused No. 3 armed with a stone concealed in cloth bairas attacked Dennis d'souza, vice president of the D. C. C. and caused a contused wound on the right maxilla near the neck and at the same time, Accused No. 4 who was armed with a small pen knife caused incised wound over the little finger box of Dennis D'souza simultaneously, the Ex-deputy Mayor of the mangalore City Corporation, who was also engaged in the meeting and on seeing the attack on dennis D'souza asked the accused not to indulge in such violence and assault, at that time, the accused threatened and all the accused uttered in loud voice "we have come here to kill you. If you don't stop this meeting and clear the congress office, we will attack you and break your limbs. " When the investigation was pending, the revision petitioner filed a private complaint before the magistrate on 30. 3. 2000. But the Trial Court took cognizance of the case on 7. 4,2000 and therefore, recorded sworn statement and after hearing the parties passed the impugned order under revision directing issuance of process against the respondents. Therefore the respondent herein assailing the said order have come up in revision under Section 397 Cr. P. C.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents and perused the records.